This is an archive of past discussions about 486958 Arrokoth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I just cut back the lengthy caption of the lead image (again). Note, that the image description on Wikimedia Commons can always be expanded with additional information. Also, in my previous edit, I mentioned the "dense field of stars". Someone changed that to "white dots in background is noise". However, the source says: "The images contain a million stars that are brighter than PT1.", which makes perfectly sense, since Hubble is looking in the direction of the Galactic Center. So yes, these smudges are faint stars not just noise. Please post below if you disagree with my revision of the caption and let's sort it out. Thx, Rfassbind– talk15:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Selected target?
[1]: "We don’t have the funding but we have the target: the New Horizons spacecraft will adjust its course to make a flyby of Kuiper Belt Object MU69 in January 2019." Tom Ruen (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Just curious as to whether any given name, label, working title, or nickname to an astronomical body can (should) be described as "designation". To me, designations, irrespective whether they are formal or provisional, can only be given by authorized institutions, i.e. IAU-MPC. So is "PT1" really a designation? Thx for the feedback, Rfassbind– talk17:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
In my understanding of it, it can. I don't have any objections to using another word if that word is appropriate; "label" is fine with me. In any case, it is not a name (nor a title). --JorisvS (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Label, designation, nickname, other things it's been called in sources: they're all names: a word or term used for identification. Many astronomical objects have multiple formal and informal names. Jonathunder (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Wrong error estimates in orbital parameters
There is an unusual issue about the uncertainty of the orbital parameters.
The huge error values result from the fact that JPL does not include the high precision measurements from Hubble.
The Hubble team is working together with the JPL to include the correct estimates. Until then, I think it should be said in any way in the article that these estimates are erroneous.
True. But that's not the reason for the large error estimates. Even with the knowledge from last October, the real uncertainty was much smaller.Renerpho (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
If you were using a ground-based telescope that does not have Hubble's resolution, you would need a 1+ year observation arc to get any decent uncertainties for a slow moving TNO. This is the reason most dwarf planet candidates are not announced until they have a 1 year observation arc. -- Kheider (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
12 hours of @NASAHubble exposures of 2014 MU69 - no moons visible
Twitter - Alex Parker: [2] The images were taken over a short period as part of Dr. Susan Benecchi's lightcurve campaign, and it allows us to search for small moons. We could have seen distant moons of 2014 MU69's as small as R~3km across. We didn't see any. I’ve done tests that indicate we could have seen moons down to V~29.5 magnitude, roughly. No teeny moons hiding far out from 2014 MU69! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomruen (talk • contribs) 18:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Mean diameter
Article says “Mean diameter 30 km”, with an Aug 2017 citation. NASA says “with dimensions of approximately 20 by 10 miles (32 by 16 kilometers)”, or smaller if a binary. I don’t have an estimate of the mean, but it must be less than 30km. JDAWiseman (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Mean diameter is going to be kinda meaningless on an object of this shape. We should try to get the overall length and the diameter of each lobe to give the reader an idea of its size. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
When was it decided that New Horizons would visit 2014 MU69?
I was looking at the New Horizons#(486958) 2014 MU69 pre-encounter phase time line and realized it did not include the date for when the New Horizons team decided that 2014 MU69 would be the next target after Pluto. This article also does not include that detail. This article has that 2014 MU69 was identified as "potential target" in October 2014. (that's sourced though weakly as neither source mentions 2014 MU69 nor any of the three potential Kuiper belt objects by name).
This article then has that 2014 MU69 "was unofficially designated as 'Potential Target 1', or PT1" but without sources. The second of the two sources[4] is a space.com article published on October 15, 2014 and quotes Alan Stern with "The New Horizons team will choose which KBO to visit next summer". Thus somewhere in the summer of 2015 2014 MU69 would have been decided on chosen as the target for New Horizons. The encounter with the Pluto system was on July 14, 2015 and trajectory correction maneuvers to aim New Horizons at 2014 MU69 were done from October 22, 2015 to November 4, 2015. --Marc Kupper|talk19:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nixinova: No. As of the present moment, the highest resolution image we have so far is this blurry peanut, taken ~800,000 km before the closest approach. See [5] for a detailed timeline of when the next images are expected to arrive. NYT 1 image (LORRI image at 300 meters per pixel, hopefully ~100 pixels across) downlink end is expected at 1 Jan 17:27 UTC spacecraft time, so it should be fully received by 1 Jan 23:35 UTC on Earth. NYT 2 image (LORRI image at 140 meters per pixel, hopefully ~200 pixels across, and MVIC image at 900 meters per pixel) expected by 2 Jan 08:39 UTC on Earth. NYT 3 image (another LORRI image at 140 meters per pixel) expected by 3 Jan 08:10 UTC on Earth. Ahiijny (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
A couple of insignificant authors seeking attention with such a ridiculous complaint does not make it relevant to an article about the astronomical object. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I would also remove that reference of the name to Nazi issues, but that could take place after the name had been confirmed or changed by IAU.Meerwind7 (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The namesake may be similar, but has nothing in relation to the Thule Society, an occultist group whose membership were the founding members of the NSDAP (Nazi Pary) in Germany in the 1920s. Astronomical or celestial bodies are often named after deities and mythologies. The planetoid/trans-Neptunian/Kuiper belt object is named for being further away in orbit (295 years around the sun) from the dwarf planet Pluto. 67.49.85.100 (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is not going to decide whether the accusations are justified; what matters is if they are relevant. And since they have been brought up in the press conference, and are being reported by the media, that relevance appears to be given. As to the relation, there are connotations of the name Ultima Thule to white power and the alt-right movement, for instance via Ultima Thule (Swedish band). Renerpho (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
It is in the article (not per my edit; it has been for a while), see the last paragraph of the Nomenclature section. Maybe everyone can check if it's okay that way? Renerpho (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Dimensions
An official press release by the New Horizons team, released in conjunction with their televised 1 January press conference, gives dimensions of approximately 20 by 10 miles (32 by 16 kilometers). I'm not sure why this absolutely latest figure wouldn't be prioritised over any other figure for dimensions in {{Infobox planet}}, a place that is already overbloated with numbers as it is. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 22:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
And the New Horizons team, released in conjunction with their televised 1 January press conference, gives a distance between lobes of 16 km (10 miles). That is referenced so stop deleting it. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: I've delegated the information into the "Characteristics" section for now as a compromise, but why should this information be stuffed into what is already an overbloated infobox, may I ask? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 23:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
"Delegate" the dimensions anyplace of your choosing. I am happy you finally understand that the distance between the lobes is an ADDITIONAL measurement in addition of its length. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
A problem with this data-- NASA gives them in miles with a single significant figure, with a 2-sigfig metric conversion. But we only give the metric, which misrepresents the precision. There are two conflicting policies on WP-- that we give measurements in metric, and that we do not misrepresent them with undue precision. For the latter, the dimensions would need to be 30 x 20 km, not 32 x 16. I've made it ≈30 x ≈15 km. The 32 x 16 given by NASA is only appropriate in the context they used, which makes it clear that the numbers are an artifact of converting to metric, not actual measurements or estimates. — kwami (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I deleted the second claim (distance between lobes). It wasn't in either of the two refs given for it, and was even back-converted to 9.9 miles! Is simple arithmetic too much to ask for? — kwami (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Reverted the deletion once again again. NASA presented ONE photograph today, labeled with the distance between the lobes. Said image is shown in both references. How hard can it be to actually look at it? Rowan Forest (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
How hard can it be to listen to the accompanying video? That's a scale bar. Nowhere do they say that it's the distance between the lobes. They certainly don't say it's 9.9 miles between the lobes! Please pay attention to what you're doing. — kwami (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The bar in the chart is not a artifact in a peanut. It is the distance between the center of the two lobes, and if you saw the press conference, they actually discussed how unusual is to have 2 objects orbiting 10 miles distance from each other, so they are sure it is lobes not a binary. Rowan Forest (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll give you 10 opportunities to guess the meaning of the scale bar NASA scientists placed on the ONLY photo they published today. Rowan Forest (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, it's a scale bar, as they note in the press conference. Yes, it is approximately the distance between the lobes, which is probably not a coincidence. But that distance is closer to 12 miles, as you can see by using the scale bar they provided for you to do exactly that. It certainly isn't 9.9 miles. I know you think you're right, but you apparently don't know how to read a map, which is essentially what this is. If you don't know what you're doing, you certainly shouldn't be edit-warring over it! — kwami (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This is an interesting discussion, with all editors acting in good faith. Maybe editors from the math projects can be asked to take a look at the two points of view. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I's a violation of WP:OR, but unfortunately Rowan doesn't seem to understand what he's doing well enough to even recognize it as OR. I wouldn't have minded if he'd actually measured the distance using the scale bar, and come up with, say, 20 km (12 mi), which is what I come up with just eyeballing it. But the idea that the distance in that blurry image can be measured to the nearest 0.1 mi is ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I hope we have much better data soon, but in the meantime we should note that this is an estimate and avoid misleading over-precision. Jonathunder (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't even an estimate. I've deleted again, as Rowan promised at 3RR to stop edit-warring over it. And yes, there's probably size estimates out today, and the separation would just be R1+R2. — kwami (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The 10 mile bar between the lobe centers represents 10 miles, as annotated by NASA, and your shenanigans will never change that. As I said, the context of NASA making a fuss about this 10 mile distance between centers was to predict a single object with two lobes, which they explained in the news conference, and that prediction confirmed today with more images. NASA stands correct despite your denials and incompetence at reading a simple scale bar. Now, the new image makes the prediction a historical footnote and it is no longer relevant to this article. 00:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
New Horizons' research results to be detailed here
I suggest this flyby and its research results shall essentially be described under the Ultima Thule's article, not under New Horizons, as almost all we will ever know about that tiny snowballs will be derived from the flyby, whereas that flyby is only a smaller part of New Horizons'Meerwind7 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC) mission.
@Meerwind7: I mean, it's a given that all information about Ultima Thule from the flyby will be detailed here, just as long as we don't detail too much about the flyby itself and leave that information for the New Horizons article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 04:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Planetoid? status
Has NASA decided to officially designate Ultima Thule a planetoid? Or it's more like an asteroid, despite it is not part of the asteroid belt between the planetary orbits of Mars (inner planet) and Jupiter (outer planet)? 2060 Chiron between the planetary orbits of Saturn and Uranus (50 year orbit around the sun) is a "centauroid" but it's been called a planetoid in some scientific (astronomical) circles. 67.49.85.100 (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Planetoid is really an unofficial term for something "larger than an asteroid, but smaller than a planet" or "possibly a dwarf planet but not really a dwarf planet" or... the definition is a bit vague. The MPC does not use the term. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk05:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Update: No information has been given about the temperature in any of the press releases. I suppose we'll have to wait until that data is sent back (which may take a while). But once it's available, the temperature should be added to the infobox. Renerpho (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
A _cold_ classical Kuiper belt object
The article says “These orbital properties mean that it is a cold classical Kuiper belt object…”. Presumably “cold” is a technical term: this non-expert reader would welcome it either being a link, or having some explanation. JDAWiseman (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
You might think that, but I got the impression from the press conference that it doesn’t refer to the temperature but rather the “orbital energy” meaning that Ultimas energy state is similar to when it formed, it’s never been perturbed into a higher energy aka “hotter” orbit by a close encounter or collision. I could be totally off, an expert would be helpful. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. It's the orbits that are 'hot' or 'cold', not the bodies. I tried to clarify that at the link, but could use a ref. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Nice image; unfortunately, this can't be used in the article. This appears to be a composite of the low-resolution colour data from [8] layed over the greyscale image [9]. To my knowledge, NASA hasn't published such an image, so this must be the work of someone who processed the data that's been released. As such, the copyright for that work belongs to whoever did the processing to align and combine the greyscale and colour images. If he/she decided to release this work into the public domain, then there's no reason why it couldn't be used on Wikipedia. (Whether it adds much is a different question, since it's not actually new data.) But until then, using it would be copyright infringement. Renerpho (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The time will be spent downloading data on this target, which means this article will have many more updates for a long time. Jonathunder (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Distant flybys are guaranteed, and are ongoing as part of the current extended Kuiper belt mission. The schedule is quite full, with 2014 PN70 and 2014 OS393 being the next targets, this week and in March.[11] What the question was about is an actual close flyby, and that possibility still exists. The original mission proposal was to conduct close flybys of one or more KBOs. But, even though the spacecraft is healthy and has plenty of fuel, no suitable target is known at the moment, so a new search would have to be conducted. Alan Stern said this search won't happen before the end of the current mission (early 2021). A flyby is possible as late as the late 2020s at heliocentric distances up to 70 AU. Renerpho (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
My impression was there are much fewer objects beyond the classical Kuiper belt, so much less likely to find a target within close reach in a scatter domain. It makes sense to me to save fuel since fuel is also needed to spin the probe for photos and turn back to direct signals back towards earth. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Less likely? - yes. But still possible, and maybe likely enough to justify a dedicated search, using Hubble, groundbased telescopes, or other resources (even a search with LORRI directly has been discussed). Eventually, it will be up to NASA to decide whether a search is justified, but they wouldn't touch the question as long as the approved mission is ongoing. Renerpho (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
See this video (35:09 - 37:00) for the relevant statement from Alan Stern, where he describes their plans. Proposal will potentially be made to NASA in summer 2020 to begin a search for new target in 2021. Alternative if no flyby target is found is to continue observations of distant KBOs (but that also needs search for targets). Renerpho (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I reckon that any future search would be expensive, that means submitting a mission extension. A 2020 review sounds right, after all data is retrieved. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The images we got these days are preliminary. The mother load in high-definition will take 20 months to download, along with other scientific data. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The best image we had of Pluto shortly after flyby. The tiny 2014 MU69 would be 2 pixels across in this image.The best image we have so far is 140 metres per pixel, but this is not the best image there will be. Actually, by the time all images of 2014 MU69 will have been sent back to Earth, we expect to have images with about twice the resolution that we had for Pluto: 35 metres per pixel. But those images are not available yet. Remember that the rate at which data is sent back is low (taking 20 months to complete the download). For Pluto, we only had the highest resolution images about 2 months after the flyby. For 2014 MU69, we should have them by late February. There is one thing to remember though, and that is that 2014 MU69 is much, much smaller than Pluto. The images we have of 2014 MU69 now are about as good as the ones we had of Pluto in the days after the flyby in 2015, but the object is just not as many pixels across. If you remember the image of Pluto that they released on the day of the flyby - 2014 MU69 would have been about 2 pixels across in that image. Renerpho (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I made a simulated appearance of the flyby with 2 sphere model, spheres 20 and 15km diameters, separation 15.5km, rotational period 15.5hr, using JPL trajectory which is perhaps 50% too far away and 30 minutes late, but otherwise a good general appearance of what we'll expect to see in pictures when they come in in a few weeks. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
The trajectory isn't perfect. JPL's data is based on a prediction from March 2018, which had the flyby occur at a distance of ~6,000 km at 5:58 UT (correct: 3,500 km at 5:33 UT), but it's not far off. If necessary, one could reverse-engineer the correct trajectory (I'd offer my help; you know how to reach me, Tom), but maybe it's good enough. Renerpho (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that showing it as the approximate perspective or point of view of the spacecraft is OK. I did wonder about it for a while, so likely other people did too. It is up to you on the time you want to invest in the mathematical precision. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Working on it. ;-) In case you are interested in spacecraft activity and pointing (also in the times when observations were actually made; NH didn't constantly observe the target), I suggest you check out the "New Horizons at MU69" plugin for NASA's Eyes.[13] See this image for a comparison. Left the prediction (zoomed in), right the actual images taken. Renerpho (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, in addition to Tom's animation, it may be worth to show the planned images (like in the simulations in that image). I'll work on something! Renerpho (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I found JPL had the updated trajectory online Saturday, and I used the 2 largest images to better orient the view, so I updated the animation above right, and stopped 2 frames to compare to the 4:23 and 5:02 images. It has a fixed 1 minutes/frame, and 9 hours total, but I slow down frame rate during closest approach. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks good, and fits well. Axis of rotation (RA,Dec)=(270°,-40°) in your simulation is pointing 25° from the Sun,[14] in agreement with their assertion from the press conference, stating that this angle was about 30°.[15] The rotation period of 15.5 hours looks about right (official is 15±1 h, and you won't get a number more precise than that). This seems ready to go into the article. One note about my animation vs. yours: NASA used this software as a preview tool for the public to follow the event. The simulation was done by mid-December when we had little idea what 2014 MU69 would look like. We knew its size, and we suspected a contact binary shape. Any further similarities between my simulation and the real images are pure chance. Renerpho (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Simulation of flyby
I updated the animation, with 12 inset images for comparison, Dec 31, 20:00 to Jan 1, 7:39. The field of view is about the same as the LORRI camera, 18'. I have a rotational period of 15.9 hours and rotational axis -50 Dec, 270 RA, to reasonably match the images. More images will be coming in days and weeks. This animation shows something of what they might look like. I wonder if they specifically picked this flyby distance so the whole body could be in view at flyby? Tom Ruen (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Possible rename, if this is considered again
I just looked though the List of trans-Neptunian objects to see if there was a Wikipedia Consensus of how to handle named TNOs. There is, the number (without parentheses) followed by the name (e.g.15760 Albion). I suggest this Consensus be followed in any rename of this article. This Consensus does not warrant re-opening the renaming of this article until (486958) 2014 MU69 gets its official name. (I wish I had seen this renaming discussion before it closed, though I would have joined the "Opposed" side, as there is no official name yet. — Lentower (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Requested move of article to different name (request as of 3 January 2019)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
(486958) 2014 MU69 → Ultima Thule (asteroid) – The powers that be (in this case, the mass media) have spoken through their widespread decision to reference this object in news headlines and article text as "Ultima Thule"; I just finished watching a NOVA special that probably used that name fifty times in an hour. Within the space of a few days, literally millions of sources referring to the object by this name (many solely by this name) have popped up. Notwithstanding the abortive move request initiated and withdrawn in a few days ago, it is highly unlikely that the object will go back to being commonly known by a numerical designation. bd2412T 03:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisted.Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there02:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I would be inclined to support a move. As with many articles, the current common name may not be scientific or official, but widely used. However, I'm not sure (asteroid) is the best description. Jonathunder (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
That is the disambiguator currently in use on the disambiguation page, Ultima Thule. "Kuiper belt object" or "trans-Neptunian object" would be more precise, but unwieldy. I suppose "minor planet" would work, but to me it sounds too planetary. bd2412T03:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as this is not the official name for the object, and the Minor Planet Center (MPC) would not list it as such. Ultima Thule is an unofficial nickname used with the public and among the New Horizons team. I prefer keeping the current provisional name and keep it until a real final name is agreed upon later with the MPC. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk05:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also, the public and media tend to use Ultima Thule as it's more memorable than the official designation of 2014 MU69. I've heard "MU69" used although this is ambiguous without the 2014 part. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk05:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting to present 'Ultima Thule' as the official name, and the text in the article will remain unchanged. The issue at hand is that both NASA and the mass media refer to it as Ultima Thule, making it the most WP:COMMONNAME. Can you or anybody recite the 14 characters of the official name by memory? Rowan Forest (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Making it the page title is doing exactly that. I can, and do, recite the full official name by memory whenever I refer to it. But this is not a memory contest, and nobody is expected to type the full name to find this page. A redirect solves that problem. There's no need to rename the page if your concern is people not memorising the IAU designation. Renerpho (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
"Making it the page title is doing exactly that." Wow. I was not aware that Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME a common-sense guideline, controls the IAU. Seriously, none of the objections in this section address the subject under discussion: the common name. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Either this or the minor planet designation. Once the name becomes official we can move the page again, but more for now this is the best way for people to find information about this newly popular asteroid. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Strong Oppose per Dreigorich. This is not (yet) the official name, nor is it in any way certain that it will be. Similar cases appear whenever discoverers of newly recognised chemical elements put names forward, and in each case from copernicium (2009) onwards the articles were not moved until the names became official. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Support changing to the WP:COMMONNAME. I prefer "minor planet" for the disambiguation but am flexible on that point. NASA uses an "UltimaThule" hashtag on Twitter. Numerous news articles are calling it Ultima Thule. At this point, there is little gained in naming the article according to some official character string. The common name could change again in the future, it's not set in stone, but this is clearly the common name now. --RL0919 (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - Agree with Double sharp on the idea that Ultima Thule is not the permanent nickname. I'm something like 99.999% certain that the name will change. Once it has been given a final name, "Ultima Thule" will become a mere reference in the history books. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk06:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Yes, there is a conflict between those two, but that's not a problem. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) should be seen as an exception to WP:COMMONNAME that has been made explicit. COMMONNAME is a guideline, not a law. The naming convention for astronomical objects has been agreed on and should be applied. If you want to change that convention, you're free to suggest, but not here. Renerpho (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - Okay, maybe the Naming conventions should make it clear that, when they ask to use a common name instead of the IAU designation, that only applies to common names that are official. If you have to choose between 2003 UB313 and Eris, you choose the latter. But only because Eris is the official name. Renerpho (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
There was extensive discussion on the talk page in mid- to late 2006, regarding the actual policies to use, in particular about the issue of "common vs. official names" and the "policy on unnamed objects".[16] Once those discussions had reached consensus, the page was turned into a guideline in this edit. That was before my time on Wikipedia so I admit that I am not familiar with the full extend of the discussion. But I can tell it was extensive and ended in a general consensus that has not been challenged since. Renerpho (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose For the same reason we didnt call Eris “xena” or 2018 VG18 “farout”. they may be common nicknames but theyre still nicknames and unofficial, and naming them as such would confuse the public over their validity. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Strong Oppose (are you kidding!?) - This is a nickname that has zero chance of becoming official ever (it does not meet the naming scheme for classical Kuiper belt objects). There has always been an incentive to use unofficial proper names to avoid having to refer to an asteroid by its official designation (examples: "Farout" for 2018 VG18). Even where those nicknames are extensively used by the media, like in the case of "Farout", these are still nicknames and Wikipedia should make that clear. Redirecting, or installing a disambiguation page, is a good solution. Making the nickname the name of the page is not. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. What's relevant is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). Renerpho (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
But that's what the exception is for; to specify where aspects of broader policies may not be applicable. Otherwise there would be no need for naming conventions. This discussion comes up every time there's a major discovery without an official name (the example of chemical elements has been mentioned already). Renerpho (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:NCASTRO says “Common names should be used for article names in preference to official, IAU-sanctioned names where the former are widely used and are unambiguous.” Calidum17:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but that is usually understood to refer to the question whether an article should be called 2013 UB313 or Eris, where both names are official and the more commonly used is preferred (in this case, Eris). 2014 MU69 is unambiguous, and is widely used. It's what is used by anyone in the scientific community outside of public outreach activities. Misread previous question, I'll rewrite my answer. (Previous answer isn't factually wrong, just irrelevant.) Renerpho (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
That argument hardly applies to nick names. Ultima Thule is neither unambiguous (for one, there's an asteroid called Thule already, one of the reasons why Ultima Thule would never be accepted by IAU - because of ambiguity), nor is 2014 MU69 so obscure that it's use as a page title is precluded. The official designation is widely used by anyone outside of NASA's public outreach activities. Renerpho (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose more time should be given to see how the IAU and MPC decide to officially designate MU69, both its name and what type of object it actually is. Until then, we shouldn't use a nickname and asteroid/minor planet/whatever --Blacklemon67 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Support per wp:commonname . Arguments for oppose, say this is not the official name yet. That doesn't come into play for common name. Arguments say people will be confused. Already confused by 486958, is that somebody's phone number? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose - It is obvious to anyone that this will not be the final name of this trans-Neptunian object. The "Ultima Thule" nickname has been widely used, but only for a few days. Once it has its proper name, the nickname will fade into the background. Moreover, there's no rush, since this article has a redirect and a disambiguation page making sure people searching for the nickname end up at the article anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - it's arguable whether this is an 'asteroid', so the 'minor planet' dab suggested above would be preferable. — kwami (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Alternative ProposalThere exist Wikipedia "languages" English and Simple English. What about leaving the formal name in English and chosing "Ultima Thule" in Simple English?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.53.198.100 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Unofficial nickname that is highly likely to be overtaken by an IAU name in due course. A redirect is sufficient. In any event, I strongly oppose using asteroid as a disambiguator for a Kuiper Belt Object as it is neither the common nor technical term in this context. Better options would be KBO, SSB (small Solar system body), or minor planet. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, but not strongly. Yes this is approaching WP:COMMONNAME, but we also apply WP:COMMONSENSE and - as has been noted above - we both have a standard naming format for astronomical objects (these are by broad long-standing consensus followed for style and consistency reasons even when there are some that COMMONNAME would point otherwise) and there are issues with the name ever becoming official (as in it's unlikely to become such). As such, for now it should be left at the designator until and unless a "proper" name is applied to it along the lines of Makemake, Haumea and Eris (dwarf planet). Until the IAU assigns a name to it moving is simply WP:TOOSOON. - The BushrangerOne ping only22:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Support, simply because people are more likely to know this object in the coming years Ultima Thule than as (486958) 2014 MU69. Yes, I know that redirect pages take care of synonyms, but still, this thing now has a name that's bound to be used in the coming future. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: I think the current header minimizes confusion and makes it abundantly clear that Ultima Thule is just a temporary nickname. Renaming the article to Ultima Thule wouldn't make sense because it's unofficial, in my opinion. Loooke (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Leave the nickname in the article, but otherwise keep the designation until it gets an official designation Juansmith (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Wait until MU69 receives an official name. The KBO is already easy to find on the disambiguation page for "Ultima Thule". MKUV (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Support as Ultima Thule (Kuiper belt object) but certainly strongly opposed to Ultima Thule (minor planet)! Situation is different from other nicknames, where the objects and their nicknames have been known only to quite few people interestes in astronomy, whereas Ultima Thule is more widespread now already. This may also convince IAU. The name had already passed some kind of public test during the search for a nickname.Meerwind7 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The name Ultima Thule does not follow IAU's naming guidelines, so it would not convince the IAU. They're strict about naming things. Only reason it's as widespread as it is is because Ultima Thule is the nickname used with the public. It's not an official name. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk03:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
But it's the common name. In any case, the interest and views of this page will dip quickly in a few days, and within a month will be out of societies attention span. At some point it will find its own level (it is almost amazing to me the regularity of views on practically every article, except for occasional spikes due to some form of media coverage, and this article will locate to its regular viewing point). If at that point the common name is still Ultima Thule then a move would seem inevitable. Should it be moved to Ultima Thule before that occurs? Given the present name of the page which, as mentioned above, resembles a phone number, it should probably have been moved yesterday. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The name really shouldn't have been used in the first place, but I see why they did it. You think we should have moved the page yesterday, I think we should never move the page until the IAU gives it a real name that isn't Ultima Thule. At this point, all I'd be doing is rehashing my arguments, and this might fall apart into a flame war between us, so for now you can just read my arguments above. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk03:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - To start with, a stronger cross-reference is needed so that typing in "Ultima Thule" or "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Thule" will immediately lead to this article, whatever its official name.Meerwind7 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, although the general usage of the term limits it to objects in the inner Solar System. As a result, Ceres is commonly seen as the largest asteroid, even if it is unlikely to be among the 100 largest minor planets. I still oppose the move of this page to anything that has "Ultima Thule" in it, but if it is ever moved (once it gets an official name), and that name has to be disambiguated, then "minor planet" should be used rather than "asteroid". I.e., once it is named X, the page title can be 486958 X (minor planet), but not 486958 X (asteroid). Renerpho (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. WP:NCASTRO states "Unofficial nicknames should not be used as article titles". This is an unusual case as it's the first time an object has been visited before it was named. Nevertheless we should wait for the final, official name. Modest Geniustalk11:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment There are eloquent arguments against the move and in favor. Evidently there is no consensus at this time, and we should probably wait a few weeks until the official name is announced and take it again from there. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I support the suggestion by user Rowan Forest to revisit the issue later. I'll be happy to support a move when the article title is ready to be moved to something less clumsy. It's just WP:TOOSOON.Renerpho (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Weak Support per WP:Common name and WP:NCASTRO (the latter even has a section stating "Common names should be used for article names in preference to official, IAU-sanctioned names where the former are widely used and are unambiguous"). If the body is given an actual official name, the article title can easily be changed again. Howpper (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Edit: Name isn't unambiguous, changed position accordingly. Howpper (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Howpper: But the name is most certainly not unambiguous. The asteroid 279 Thule not only causes confusion, but it guarantees 2014 MU69 will not be called "Ultima Thule" except in a footnote in history. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
There are also the Thule asteroids, an unusual group[17] of asteroids that include 279 Thule, but decidedly does not include Ultima Thule as its ultimate member. It does not get more ambiguous. Renerpho (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. The style recommendations are somewhat contradictory, but as they move towards the specific case here: the nickname of an asteroid or small solar system body, the recommendation gets stronger against the use of nicknames.
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources).
General guidelines [for astronomical objects]: Common names should be used for article names in preference to official, IAU-sanctioned names where the former are widely used and are unambiguous.
Asteroids. Unofficial nicknames should not be used as article titles.
Since WP policy points toward use of the official name until a formal name is designated, and since, as has been pointed out above, there are reasons to question what the official name will be, the name should stay as it is. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, this is a temporary nickname given to it by the NASA team. It will soon be given an official name by the IAU. It is general WP practice to stick to official names for these bodies. Also, it is not asteroid, formally. Ordinary Person (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - per Ordinary Person, just above. We should wait for the IAU. In my view, we should soon close this as “no consensus.” Jusdafax (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Ultima Thule is not this object's official name. We should wait until it get's one. On another not if this page does get moved Ultima Thule (Kuiper Belt object) would probably be the best option, as calling this an asteroid is iffy at best and calling it a minor planet would be confusing to laypeople. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Strong support for “Ultima Thule (minor planet)” (or similar). Even if its formal name is something complicated, everybody and their cousins, including those working at NASA, call it “Ultima Thule”. JDAWiseman (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as this is a temporary unofficial nickname, albeit widely used everywhere at NASA and the media, it's still a nickname. Suggest wait until the proposal is submitted and accepted before moving (citing WP Naming conventions on asteroids). Aside, suggest close as no consensus 172.254.96.122 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support. The name policy for all articles says to use the most commonly used name, which is not necessarily the official name. The general guideline for astronomical objects reaffirms this and notes that article names should be optimized for “a general audience over specialists.” Some have speculated above that an official name other Ultima Thule may be chosen. But in the first place until then the title should be Ultima Thule. And even if a different name becomes official, I submit that the title should still be Ultima Thule unless and until the official name becomes common. If the specific guideline for dwarf planets can be interpreted otherwise, that guideline should be clarified to bring it in line with the name policy and the general guideline. Some have argued above that the specific guideline for asteroids says that “unofficial nicknames” (whatever that means) should not be used for asteroids, but Ultima Thule is not an asteroid. —teb728tc19:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per article title critera of PRECISION, CONSISTENCY and NATURALNESS. Ultima Thule is imprecise, referring to multiple topics, and parenthetical disambiguation is not natural. Current title is more precise and doesn't require any unnatural disambiguators, as well as being more consistent with how other articles on astronomical bodies are named. Any official name promulgated by the IAU is likely not to require disambiguation and will be still be consistent with naming of other astronomical bodies. The other article title criteria are CONCISENESS and RECOGNIZABILITY. With a parenthetical disambiguation, Ultima Thule isn't going to be more concise in word count, and may not be more concise in character count. Ultima Thule is more RECOGNIZABLE in the context of the current news cycles, but there's no reason to think it will prevail long term over an IAU name (the earlier New Horizons discovery of Pluto's Heart didn't stay at that title). COMMONNAME is a double dipping of RECOGNIZABILITY that was grafted back into the article title criteria many years after Wikipedia's founding. These days, search engines are smart enough to give a high position to Wikipedia articles regardless of how "uncommon" the title we choose is. While the current title is quite technical, is there any evidence that readers searching for Ultima Thule are actually having trouble finding the article at its current title? Plantdrew (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose There is no official Name, yet. And it is not clear what kind of object it is. Existing redirection is sufficient for the time being. Mjoppien (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Strong support – Most of the opposing comments cite the lack of an official name, but that is not policy, so those arguments should be discounted. WP:AT states Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.WP:OFFICIAL further explains: In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be. Finally, WP:UCRN explicitly prefers commonly recognizable names. There is no question that Ultima Thule is more recognizable than 2014 MU69, and it has been demonstrated that most reliable English-language sources have been using Ultima Thule ever since the flyby occurred. If and when a different official name is published and adopted by sources, it will be the right time to move there. — JFGtalk10:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
What about WP:NCASTRO, which is asking not to use nicknames, and if they are used, to make sure they are - among other things - unambiguous? "Ultima Thule" is highly ambiguous: Already having 279 Thule and the Thule asteroids, of which "Ultima Thule" is not a member, would cause confusion. Ambiguity is one of the shortcomings for which IAU's guidelines exclude it as an official name candidate.[18] I question whether arguments that cite WP:AT or related politices asking for unambiguous names are sound, because nobody has so far explained how those arguments apply to this article. Both "Ultima Thule (asteroid)" or "Ultima Thule (minor planet)" retain the ambiguity from the existence of a family of asteroids called the Thule asteroids to which this object has no relation. Renerpho (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Glad you asked. WP:NCASTRO starts by reminding the general article titling policy (use the most recognizable name from sources), then states: Common names should be used for article names in preference to official, IAU-sanctioned names where the former are widely used and are unambiguous. (emphasis mine) So even if we had an official IAU name, we should use the common name from sources instead. As we don't even have an official name yet, the catalog designation should have even lower priority, given the overwhelming coverage as "Ultima Thule" in sources. Granted, this object is a novel case, as there has not been enough time to name it officially before its nickname exploded into a myriad sources. This is reaon enough to give more weight to the spirit of WP:AT and WP:NCASTRO, rather than the letter of a later part of NCASTRO that guards against using nicknames for asteroids. The ambiguity is easily resolved with the "(minor planet)" qualifier, I don't see any confusion issue here. The Thule asteroid family is indeed something else entirely, and they are not called "Ultima". — JFGtalk19:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Even when Eris was named "Xena" by the media (before its official name was decided upon), the Wikipedia page was not titled Xena. Does this make a precedent for not moving the article? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Edit: Yes, it was briefly called "Xena (Planet)" and "Xena (dwarf planet)" sparking an edit war over the title of the article. In the end, it was kept at 2003 UB313 before being moved to 136199 Eris, then Eris (dwarf planet). ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk01:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
In the case of Eris, I consider an edit war only fitting to the namesake.[sarcasm] What's wrong with having a redirect for Ultima Thule and wait? There is no evidence that people are actually having trouble finding this page. To quote Mike Brown: Things are moving slowly in the Kuiper Belt. @JFG: You are not addressing the issue I presented. I know that WP:NCASTRO does not take IAU names as the gold standard (even though the incentive to avoid nicknames has been very strong in how that policy is commonly applied in practise). My emphasis is on the where the former are widely used and are unambiguous part. You disregard that as not an issue; I can not agree with that. @Дрейгорич: I read your comment further up where you said you'd immediately start a discussion to move it back in the case the current request was successful. As much as I'd disagree with having the page moved to Ultima Thule, please let's not turn this into an edit war. Renerpho (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, as many said above the official naming is owned by MPC, which did not conclude on it. One thing is for sure: the MPC eventually will decide on and publish a final, formal minor planet designation. There is no good reason for wikipedia users to prematurely use a nickname as title of an article as long as the article can be found via the Ultima Thule disambiguation page. This way people can learn something. Gérard007 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:See by the two comments below that more than the above boldface-type words are needed in explanation. Started to close this as no consensus; however, then I realized that this is a very active debate, one of the most active RMs I've seen in a long time. I also saw that discussion and comments had not yet "died down", and I did not want to cut things off midstream. While there is always the possibility that a closer may come along anytime after relisting and close this debate, the future outcome might not be predictable. I certainly don't have any crystal balls – how about you?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there02:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment No consensus seems possible at this time. I don't see why the relisting was necessary, but I'll be happy to see new arguments show up for either side. Renerpho (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Agreed. There does not seem to be any sort of possible consensus (this was apparent a few days in) and I do not understand why this was relisted. Retaining the status quo until further developments is probably for the best. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk05:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hard to say for sure. The process involves the New Horizons team making a (confidential) proposal to IAU, which will then be voted upon by the Committee for Small-Body Nomenclature. For most names, this can take a while (many months). In high priority cases like this one, the process may be sped up considerably. It is possible an official name is announced tomorrow, or months later. There will almost certainly be an official name this year. Renerpho (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Begs the question, why aren't we adhering to WP:AT, especially as explained at WP:OFFICIAL? Reliable secondary sources are what determine an article's name, and not whether or not it is the "official" name. Shouldn't have to wait for the IAU to decide an "official" name for this rather phenomenal celestial bod, isn't that correct? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there18:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
So what I hear is that the community consensus that forms a policy is "superceded" by the community consensus that forms a naming convention (a guideline)? And what (other than WP:IAR, which requires a very good reason) is written that tells us that a policy can be overridden by a guideline? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there15:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
From the notice at the top of the naming convention: This convention gives guidance on the names that should be used for articles on astronomical objects, […]. Common names should be used where these are popular […]. How are "common names" decided? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there16:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
"Common name" is a term with a meaning internal to Wikipedia, and generally means the name by which people in the real world are most likely to refer to a subject. This can change, but right now it does seem to be the proposed title. bd2412T19:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
We might have an official name in the next hour, or we might have an official name only when ten years have passed. In the moment, it is hard to say because both where the team is in the process and the name itself are confidential until the IAU announces the final name, whenever that may be. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk01:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The common name argument is a bit of a red herring, because the nickname this object has been given is too similar to other objects, resulting in ambiguity. Ambiguity is one of the main reasons to not use a common name. That's why the official designation (the current title of the article) is better than the nickname, until an official name is decided upon and assigned. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: COMMONNAME applies differently to article creation than it does to moving an article from a stable namespace. The widespread use of Ultima Thule is a result of recent media coverage. The desire to reflect every RW change in nomenclature has to be weighed against the instability, and additional labor and maintenance doing so would create. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I think perhaps there is some overthinking going on here. This boils down to two issues. First, mainstream media is continuing to reference this object as Ultima Thule, with new stories coming out with that reference in the headline just in the past few hours: "Amazing NASA Video Shows Ultima Thule Approach"; "SPACE TUMBLE Nasa releases first video of Ultima Thule ‘space snowman’ – the ‘most distant object ever visited’"; "The artist who ‘saw’ Ultima Thule 40 years ago". Second, this is not going to change short of a different new name being announced (and perhaps, even then if the new name doesn't catch on with the public). When will that announcement come? It could be days, months, or years. Will that name be something other than Ultima Thule? Even if the rules for naming such entities would counsel against this, it is still WP:CRYSTAL to speculate that it will change again. For the time being, the overwhelming common name of this object is Ultima Thule, and we remain behind the times for as long as we do not recognize that. bd2412T18:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
How does WP:CRYSTAL apply? It's standard procedure for naming astronomical objects. Due to the confidentiality of the procedure used in naming objects formally, we can't know if the New Horizons team is proposing a formal name, although it is very likely that they are going to do so in the next few months if they aren't already doing so. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk20:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I totally concur with bd2412's assessment. As I mentioned in the !vote section, all comments arguing we should wait for some official name should be discounted: Wikipedia policy strongly favors the most-used name of article subjects in English-language reliable sources, a.k.a. "common name", and even the dedicated WP:NCASTRO guideline reaffirms this key principle. — JFGtalk19:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Are you in favor of silencing an entire argument made by the other side because of a Wikipedia policy that is discounted by that side? OBJECTION!!!― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It is WP:CRYSTAL to say either that the official name will be something other than Ultima Thule, or that the common usage will change once that announcement happens. bd2412T21:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
And it is absurd to think "Ultima Thule" will ever be the name that will be used. It absolutely and categorically won't be. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you even aware of the IAU's naming guidelines? Ultima Thule can never become the name for the object. It's been mentioned hundreds of times and yet your objections are ill-founded. From the MPC's website: "Objects in the classical TNO belt are to receive names of creation deities." https://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/info/HowNamed.html Ultima Thule is not a creation deity, and thus can never receive this name. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk01:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The IAU is not afraid of making exceptions. And no matter which way they name this thing in the future, its name today is Ultima Thule for all practical purposes. It will be easy to change later if needed. — JFGtalk04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Quote @BD2412: "Second, this is not going to change short of a different new name being announced (and perhaps, even then if the new name doesn't catch on with the public). When will that announcement come? It could be days, months, or years." The first part is crystal ball, again. Are you familiar with the case of planet Xena? When the discovery of Eris (its formal name) was announced in 2005, the new planet - it was before that term was redefined - was given the nickname "Xena". The media referred to it almost exclusively by that name, with extensive media coverage. Yet, Wikipedia decided to stick to the article name 2003 UB313, having Xena (planet) as a redirect. It took about 18 months for a formal name to be announced. During all most of that time, the lead section of the article explained that Xena was not a real name, stating: "Claims that 2003 UB313 has been named 'Xena' or 'Lila' are incorrect; 'Xena' is an informal codename used by its discoverers among themselves and 'Lila' is a name in the address of the website where the object was announced, after the newly-born daughter of one of the discoverers, but neither were submitted to the IAU."[19] Why was it not moved to Xena (planet)? Because nicknames are not to be used. When the object was finally named Eris, that name was quickly accepted despite the previous media coverage, and nowadays it is up to space historians to remind us that there had ever been another name. Will it be the same for 2014 MU69? I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball. But regardless of whether it will be or not, Eris can serve as a good example. Renerpho (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit: Do with that latter argument what you like; that's it for me for this discussion, too, per WP:CAPITULATE. I am going to look for areas of Wikipedia where more constructive work can be done. Renerpho (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
As much as I want to use the common name, we can all agree that clearly there is no consensus. I propose to close this Move request and revisit the issue after the formal name is announced. No smashing screens. The drinks and chips are on me :-) Rowan Forest (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Rowan. This has gone long enough and there seems to be no good reason to continue this discussion, as it seems to be going back and forth over the same handful of discussion points. We should close this as a No consensus and keep the status quo for now. Until either a more convincing argument for moving the page to "Ultima Thule (minor planet)" can be made, or an official name for the object is announced, we shouldn't drag this out any longer for no clear result. If we viewed this discussion through a bureaucratic angle, which is otherwise discouraged, 36 people, 62%, have opposed the move, while 22 people, 38%, have voiced varying degrees of support for the move on this talk page. The piont of bringing this up is to simply illustrate that if there is barely any momentum of support for the move proposal, and if people won't be comvinced now, it's highly unlikely given the current state of this discussion, that they'll be inclined to change their minds. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 08:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection in principle to the closure of this discussion, but there is a backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves, so the fastest way to get this closed is to work through that backlog so there is nothing ahead of this. bd2412T00:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, however popular the nickname, calling it an "asteroid" is not. Its seems people are calling it a KBO usually, alternatively minor planet may be more appropriate. Example Ultima Thule (Kuiper belt object), alternatively the MPC designation could be used as the dab like this Ultima Thule ((486958) 2014 MU69). Fotaun (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Archiving period for talk page
This talk page is now over 100 kB, and the archiving period should be changed from 90 days to 30 days (or fewer). Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
That's not too long. Switching to 30 days would lose commentary that immediately followed the flyby. In turn, that would prompt repeat threads about issues already discussed. Keep as is. — JFGtalk20:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I concur with JFG. Activity on this page has spiked shortly after the flyby, resulting in a rather long talk page, but those comments are still relevant. Moving them to the archive now would hinder ongoing discussions. Renerpho (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Could circular structures be signs of life, and advanced civilization on Ultima Thule? If so, could this civilization be hundreds of millions or even billions of years older than Earth? Could it possibly include Thulian shapeshifters, who visit our world and live among us even now? Hyperbolick (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
RfC:Picking a disambiguator
There is still no consensus between using a "Common Name (disambiguator)" construct or sticking to the convention of "486958 Official Name". If, however, the first construct ends up being used while waiting for an official name to be assigned, then the disambiguator should be either "Kuiper-belt object" (option 2) or "Trans-Neptunian object" (option 6). — JFGtalk13:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The recent move request revealed a lack of consensus to depart from the numerical designation at this time, and further disagreements on which disambiguator should be used whenever this page's title moves to a name. Irrespective whether a later move targets the Ultima Thule nickname or a yet-to-be-assigned IAU official name, it is likely that the name will require a disambiguator. This RfC aims to clarify the community's thinking on this issue. It may in turn inform an extension of WP:NCASTRO to similar cases, past or future.
Please choose "Option N" with a brief rationale. If you deem some options unacceptable, please add "not P,Q" and explain why. Options for which you are neutral should not be mentioned. — JFGtalk09:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Survey
Rejecting Asteroid, minor planet, Planetesimal, Small Solar System body and Trans-Neptunian object, as a disambiguator should start with a lower case character. Kuiper-belt object is acceptable with case. Also ok would be "object" a very generic term. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment With the official name, yes, this is the option I'd prefer (as I said below). But as long as Ultima Thule is only a nickname, I'd find 486958 Ultima Thule not acceptable and would oppose a move to this title. Renerpho (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Renerpho: Richard was merely presenting "Ultima Thule" as an example in lieu of whatever official name is selected in the future; they are not proposing that the article be named "Ultima Thule". Any attempt to rename the article to Ultima Thule will go down in flames just like what happened not too far up this page, because the only compelling argument for it, that it is a common name, was weak and failed to convince a lot of people who opposed the move. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 21:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: Thanks. I was pretty sure it was meant that way, but wanted to be absolutely clear about it. Regarding the renaming to Ultima Thule - I am not so sure about that. I was (and still am) one of the very vocal opponents to that move. My main objections is possible ambiguity of WP:NCASTRO as a result of moving the article to the nickname. But that policy is currently reworded, and the passage concerning nicknames is being changed. I could imagine to support a move to the nickname if those concerns are taken care of. See the discussion on the WP:NCASTRO talk page. Renerpho (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Option 1. I was going to say Option 3, but then I decided maybe I should know a bit about the terms before I saying something. Option 1 makes the most sense to me as it is a WP:COMMONNAME that would be descriptive and understood. I thought minor planets meant something akin to Pluto, and I still find the differences between dwarf and minor planets to be confusing to me. People are familiar with the term asteroid as opposed to every single other option on that list. I don't want to reinvent the wheel here. If people need to read our article on Asteroids to refresh their memory, that's one thing, but most of the terms people will cause so confusion. Minor planet is especially bad (even though it was my original first pick) precisely because people who like me will make the assumption that they understand what it means when they don't. Let's play it safe and pick Option 1. ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖20:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@MattLongCT:2014 MU69 is not an asteroid. It is a Classical Kuiper Belt Object and a Trans-Neptunian Object. An asteroid is categorically a minor planet with an orbit typically inside the orbit of Jupiter. Using "asteroid" to indiscriminately describe any minor planet is an antiquated practice. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 21:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
^Planet, asteroid, minor planet: A case study in astronomical nomenclature, David W. Hughes, Brian G. Marsden, Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage10, #1 (2007), pp. 21–30. Bibcode:2007JAHH...10...21H
^"Asteroid", MSN Encarta, Microsoft. Accessed May 5, 2008. Archived 2009-11-01.
@MattLongCT: "Planetoid" more or less means the same thing as "minor planet" as described on the Minor planet article; the latter being the more scientific description. If you find the term "minor planet" confusing, surely you can realise "planetoid" would be confusing too. It's both an informal term and less used in scientific literature and news sources. Casual readers would have a hard time understanding what a "planetoid" is. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 05:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Matthew J. Long. If the point is to disambiguate, then choose an unambiguous word such as asteroid. It is both a historical synonym and is clear. The exact nature and location of the object is explained in the article body. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: But 2014 MU69 is not an asteroid. By your logic, we should still be calling Pluto a planet, then, simply because that's how people used to call things. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 22:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
PhilipTerryGraham, My hang up on Minor planet is that it has the word "planet" in it. People like me who are ignorant will think they know what the term means when they don't. "Planetoid" is a term most are unfamiliar with, so it will not have that problem. However, my first choice is still Option 1 for the reasons described by Rowan Forest above. ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖15:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@MattLongCT: You would be creating a slippery slope if you're honestly suggesting Wikipedia should cater to the ignorant who don't want to necessarily learn. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 22:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
PhilipTerryGraham I am not suggesting that in any way. My arguments for the first choice are that it disambiguates well. For my second and third choices (Kuiper-belt object and Planetoid), my intention is just the opposite as you described: I feel the use of these terms will spark more curiosity from readers in addition to disambiguating the article sufficiently well. I do not see an arguement that has been made specifically by you against Option 2. I feel you disregarded WP:NCASTRO#Common names in your assessment as well in your !vote for NOTA. IDK, maybe you could explain to me why you feel Option 2 is somehow not preferable to Option 1 in your view. I have already made my arguments for that pointI feel a familiar term (such as asteroid) would be preferable to one unfamiliar (Option 2). I want to hear what you have to say for that. ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖22:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@MattLongCT: In the original move discussion, I had actually supported the move under common name guidelines. However, by the discussion's end, this argument was rejected by a substantial number of people. Pushing this same argument would be, for a lack of a better term, pissing in the wind. I'm fundamentally opposed to reopening a move discussion that will inevitably be another "no consensus", especially when an official name will soon enough be out and typical minor planet naming protocols will take over. This is why I made an argument against all of the options. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 23:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
None of the above per Wikipedia' guidelines on naming minor planets. When an official name is chosen, the article's title will be along the lines of "486958 Official Name". The guideline specifically states, "For bodies that have received official naming from the Minor Planet Center (MPC), the article title should be the object's minor planet number (without parentheses), followed by its official name e.g. 4 Vesta." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 21:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Option 2 (Kuiper-belt object), as that's what it is. It's okay to be precise here because all readers really need to see is Ultima Thule (some sciencey clarifier). Against using the "default" random minor planet guideline - there exists a common name here, that should be front and center. This case is much closer to Eris (dwarf planet) wherein there's a common name, so lead with that, not 136199 Eris. This will be true regardless of when the KBO's official name is granted, and I would support any of the 6 offered identifiers over 486958 SomeOfficialName. SnowFire (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Option 2 (Kuiper-belt object), not 1, not 3 – KBO is the "least-loaded" descriptor of this entity, and it's widely described this way in sources. "Asteroid" is ambiguous, the IAU terminology "Small Solar System body" did not catch on, and "Minor planet", while technically correct, is confusing to lay readers. — JFGtalk08:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Question Sorry if this is a silly question (I haven't participated in lots of these discussions before): I have voted in the discussion section below. Am I supposed to repeat my vote here? Renerpho (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Renerpho: Yes, your !vote with a brief rationale should be in this section. Don't move your previous comment, but please add a summary here. — JFGtalk12:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Option 6, as the most natural. Not 1, 3, 4 (not an asteroid; confusing terminology). I could live with option 2, if it doesn't result in a zoo of disambiguators (Scattered disc object, detached object, sednoid, etc.) See Discussion below for detailed rationale. Renerpho (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
We will need one inevitably. As has been pointed out in the discussion above, the IAU naming protocol is generally to name things in space after mythological figures. If that practice is followed here, the name given to this object will primarily be that of a mythological figure, and a disambiguator will be be required. It makes sense to come to a consensus on one in advance, so that does not become an issue. bd2412T13:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Once the official name is given, no disambiguator will be required, as the article can be moved to 486958 X (X being the official name), as per WP:NCASTRO. Given the possibility of another RFC to the nickname, and to resolve any disambiguity of WP:NCASTRO, the question should be decided nonetheless. Renerpho (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Not Asteroid - not acceptable, because that term is usually reserved to objects in the inner Solar System, despite not explicitly defined in that way (see Largest asteroids for example). An abbreviation like Not Ultima Thule (tno) seems counterproductive, as that abbreviation needed to be disambiguated again. Ultima Thule (minor planet) would be acceptable to me, although I have seen arguments that this may cause confusion for laymen (not not sure how that would cause confusion?). Similar for Ultima Thule (Kuiper belt object). I'd vow for Option 486958 X (no disambiguator needed with the eventually chosen official name) or Option Ultima Thule (trans-Neptunian object), if the article should ever be moved to the nickname (after the discussion at WP:NCASTRO has come to consensus). Renerpho (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Renerpho, I wanted to ping you so that you can see my response above. I see now that asteroid generally refers to objects in the Asteroid belt and not the Kuiper belt. I suppose Option 2 would be my second choice as it is prescriptive, but I am pretty sure Option 3 would still cause confusion. That's all I got. ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖20:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I support 486958 Temporary Nickname (trans-Neptunian object) - the Kuiper belt is a subset of it. Minor planet/asteroid seems too inclusive and Kuiper belt object might not be correct if we're not sure whether a TNO is a KBO. When the object gets its IAU name, I support 486958 IAU Name like we do almost all other minor planets, dwarf planets excepted. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC) I also reject planetesimal (and planetoid) - the terminology is too ambiguous and it is not officially endorsed. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk01:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with User:Дрейгорич's argument to reject Kuiper belt obejct. We'd have to introduce a whole zoo of disambiguators (sednoid, scattered disc object, resonant object, detached object, etc.), which not only gets into ongoing debates how to correctly classify those objects, but also adds unnecessary information, where trans-Neptunian object fits all and leaves no ambiguity. An argument to reject minor planet is the similarity to dwarf planet. I could see how confusion may arise. Whether 2014 MU69 is a reject planetesimal is unclear at this time, and will have to be determined (the term is part of the hypothesis that objects like this formed the planets, which is likely true, but the processes involved are unclear). Reject planetoid per Dreigorich's reasoning. (I hope I have voted exactly once on each relevant option now.) Renerpho (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment The title/name should not delve into the nature or location of this object. That is explained in the article body. When the official name is revealed, and if a disambiguation is needed, I would consider something very general and readily identifiable by a layman reader with a high school diploma, such as "asteroid" or "Small Solar System body". Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk)
@Rowan Forest:2014 MU69 is not an asteroid, and "minor planet" basically means any "small solar system body" that isn't a comet; it'd be precise enough for a "layman reader with a high school diploma". They taught us what minor planets were in science class down here in Australia, at least. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 03:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Just a thought out of left field here, but why not contact binary? Whatever else it is, it certainly is one of those. bd2412T03:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"Contact binary object" at least would remove the ambiguity. In the rare cases where that term is used in the literature, it exclusively refers to asteroids, not stars.[20] Judging from that, it may be acceptable. Whether it's a useful disambiguator is a different question. I'm not fond of it because that form of the term is used so rarely. Renerpho (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Space 1999 season 1 episode 5 1975
In the 1975 ITV television show Space 1999, "Ultima Thule" is an ice planet populated by the survivors of the 1986 Uranus mission Teledyn (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
That is mentioned in the disambiguation page for Ultima Thule. I cannot see it going in this article unless there is a reference out there mentioning that one of the people who gave it that name was inspired by that show. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Interval from discovery to exploration
Aside from being the first object to be discovered after the probe was launched, would the fact less than 5 years elapsed between discovery and New Horizons' flyby also make it the shortest interval between discovery and exploration/flyby? Not counting things like moons of Jupiter discovered by the probe itelf. 50.66.121.20 (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@Fotaun: Earlier today, you added some concept art of 2014 MU69 which was used to illustrate the possible shapes of the object prior to the flyby. Those images were part of the article until 17 March 2019, when they were removed (arguably because they were outdated), see this edit. I reverted your edit, because 1. I believe the image are no longer relevant, and 2. The images shouldn't go into the "2018 occultations" section. Since you reverted me back, I'd like to discuss the issue here before making any further changes to this. Also tagging user @Nrco0e: who has removed the images in March. Opinions? Renerpho (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't really mind the first concept image of 2014 MU69 being in the article since it correctly depicts the believed shape of 2014 MU69 prior to the flyby. The right two images in the multiple images template, on the other, hand, are less relevant and are not needed. I don't find the promotional image to be encyclopedic, and should be removed anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrco0e (talk • contribs)
@Nrco0e: Thanks. I moved the two illustrations to the relevant section, and removed the unencyclopedic part. @Fotaun: I hope you can agree with this version? If not, please discuss your objections here before reverting. Renerpho (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am sorry for the unintended controversy over the addition. As per usual I welcome editing to my addition, however I am against no mention of these concepts. I stand by the idea the artworks are an important part of the history of this object, and the artwork incorporates real data such as spectrum (color) and shape data from occulations. These were humanities best idea of what it might look like before the flyby. Thanks. Fotaun (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Fotaun: I agree that the concepts (the first two, not the last one which is just promotional) do have historical value and are of encyclopedic interest. The article's section on the 2017 occultations already mentioned that those allowed to create illustrations (models) of the object, so that seemed like a good point where the images can be used. Part of the reason I reverted you in the first place was that you had added the illustrations to the 2018 occultations section, where they definitely don't belong. I hope the matter is resolved now. Renerpho (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Starsandwhales: I've changed and reworded some technical sentences in the article, including the streaming instability part in the Formation section. About the edit conflict, it has been fully resolved. Nrco0e (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks good.
Requested move 12 November 2019
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(486958) 2014 MU69 → 486958 Arrokoth – The object has been officially named today, following the name proposed by the New Horizons team to the IAU. Going with the convention for articles about named minor planets, the article should be moved. I am aware of the controversy caused by the previous request to move this article, so I want to make sure there is consensus to make this move. Renerpho (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support - If it is the official name selected by the IAU, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. Being easier to remember, it will definitely become the "common name" too. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris0282. I would have no problem with a speedy move, if it is uncontroversial. I wasn't 100% sure there would be such strong support. Renerpho (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support - It's official. But we should cite the Minor Planets Circular mentioned in the discussion section (below.) For some reason, the APL press release didn't explicitly say the IAU had approved the name. That's just poor phrasing on their part, but it's the MPC circular that formally makes it official. Fcrary (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support with a little adjustment to proposed - Instead of moving it to 486958 Arrokoth, I think it should be moved to Arrokoth_(Kuiper_Belt_Object) or something along those lines. I just feel it will be easier for someone who wants to look up Arrokoth for some school project or something is more likely to go to one which is labeled as a Kuiper Belt object, than one which has a bunch of numbers in front of it. AndrewRG10 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Given that the only other meaning of the word "Arrokoth" relates to a language that has been extinct for 230 years, with apparently no mention of the word in the literature relating to the mythology of the Powhatan (at least I still have to find any), we probably don't! In that sense it is much easier to handle than "Ultima Thule", which had lots of meanings, some even related to astronomy. Renerpho (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing, Nrco0e. The object is mentioned on the very last page of that pdf-document. There is also [21], the presentation of the name by the discoverers (no official source for that yet outside of Twitter). Renerpho (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Correction: There is an official source for that now.[22] 20:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
No worries, this will get done. The JPL database always takes a couple hours more than that of the MPC to update the names. AstDyS should follow suit in a week or so; maybe longer if the orbit update takes longer. Renerpho (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
whatever that may be As far as I know, "Arrokoth" is the word for sky in a certain Native American language - possibly with mythological connotations to that word. Renerpho (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC) If helpful, here's the entry from a dictionary of the (long extinct) Powhatan language: [23] 00:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe relavant (if marginally): The most detailed mention of the term "Arrokoth" unrelated to astronomy may be [24] from 2017, which discusses the etymology of the word. Renerpho (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Done -BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
— JFG talk 09:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Done - Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
· 
· 
· 
We are back at the discussion about the right disambiguation - one of the main stumbling blocks of the previous move request. I agree that this is an important point. Anyone who is looking for arguments and counter-arguments is encouraged to read Talk:(486958)_2014_MU69/Archive_1#RfC:Picking_a_disambiguator again. Renerpho (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
![[8]](http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Press-Conferences/2019-01-02/960x540/Slide14.jpeg){kind=link}
![[9]](http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Galleries/Featured-Images/pics/20190102-pr.png){kind=link}
![[11]](https://blogs.nasa.gov/pluto/wp-content/uploads/sites/253/2016/12/KBO-Observation-Chart-12-19-16.jpg){kind=link}
Arrokoth has been approved by the IAU in the most recent Minor Planet Circular. It should be moved after all since it's official. It will take a while for the small body browser to update. https://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2019/MPC_20191108.pdf Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 19:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Would it be sufficient to have both Arrokoth and Arrokoth (Kuiper Belt object) as redirects, and stick to the conventions defined in WP:NCASTRO by naming the article 486958 Arrokoth? Anyone searching for "Arrokoth" would find this article, whether they type the number or not. Renerpho (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)